I don't think any of us here give a shiat about how much money someone else makes. The problem is that the majority of us don't have enough money to meet our own essential living costs.

Live and let live.

And the fact that the shiatty lifestyle of the poor is definitely fueling the opulence of the rich, and the retarded lower/lower-middle class Teabaggers voting against their own economic self-interest is rage inducing.

The poor aren't fueling anything for anyone and the above average educated and above average income teabaggers possibly have more ethics than a person who consistantly votes for their own economic interests. Everything is not outcome based for everyone. It is in my economic best interest to murder an old couple down the street and search their home for cash and jewelry, but I'm not going to go and.....come to think of it, I have been torn between a Rem 7600, cheap used 7400, a BAR and I've been weighing those against others things I want to buy like a shed for the yard, a new car, some motorcycle parts, and a media PC. I could just buy it all and not even have to use my own money. fark it and fark the tea party and all the legal governance shiat. Self-interest is where it's at. Might divorce the wife and hook up with a skank with two kids living in $150 per month section 8 housing while I'm at it. I'll be living like a king. I suddenly feel total rage towards anyone who is retarded enough to ignore their own self-interest.

rka:Hobodeluxe: and their banks are stable too. and they have national health care. it must be magic.I was told in no uncertain terms that this is unpossible to achieve.

Then why does the CBC report that the Canadian banks secretly (or at least on the down low) received over $114 Billion in "assistance"? Or that they even tapped into funds set up by the US Federal Reserve?

<blockquote><i>"At some point during the crisis, three of Canada's banks - CIBC, BMO, and Scotiabank - were completely under water, with government support exceeding the market value of the company," Macdonald said."Without government supports to fall back on, Canadian banks would have been in serious trouble." </i></blockquote>

Hmm.

the collapse was global and everyone suffered. Wall st (with help from Moody's) had sold junk to everyone.but none of them actually went under and they recovered more quickly because they weren't as overextended as our banks.and why not borrow money at 0% if the Fed is giving it away?

No I was wrong. It looks like Canadians pay taxes on world wide income. I don't have time to look more into it, now -- but that's interesting.

We do. The major difference is that if you're not living in Canada (like me) you don't have to file or pay Canadian income tax (except on some income earned in Canada). It's YOUR location that's important.

Thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense. If you're not living in the country, you're not using the services. The US tax system treats us like serfs. No matter where go we have to pay the lord.

No I was wrong. It looks like Canadians pay taxes on world wide income. I don't have time to look more into it, now -- but that's interesting.

We do. The major difference is that if you're not living in Canada (like me) you don't have to file or pay Canadian income tax (except on some income earned in Canada). It's YOUR location that's important.

Thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense. If you're not living in the country, you're not using the services. The US tax system treats us like serfs. No matter where go we have to pay the lord.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 526x222]

**Countries (2) in pink have citizenship-based taxation where that citizens pay regardless of residencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation

Actually the US never really enforced the rule until the recession started.

But hey, Revenue Canada also wanted me to pay my corporate tax on time, which they never used to care about.

Hobodeluxe:rka: Hobodeluxe: and their banks are stable too. and they have national health care. it must be magic.I was told in no uncertain terms that this is unpossible to achieve.

Then why does the CBC report that the Canadian banks secretly (or at least on the down low) received over $114 Billion in "assistance"? Or that they even tapped into funds set up by the US Federal Reserve?

<blockquote><i>"At some point during the crisis, three of Canada's banks - CIBC, BMO, and Scotiabank - were completely under water, with government support exceeding the market value of the company," Macdonald said."Without government supports to fall back on, Canadian banks would have been in serious trouble." </i></blockquote>

Hmm.

the collapse was global and everyone suffered. Wall st (with help from Moody's) had sold junk to everyone.but none of them actually went under and they recovered more quickly because they weren't as overextended as our banks.and why not borrow money at 0% if the Fed is giving it away?

Ah, so when you meant stable (and linked to that bastion of journalism, The Daily Show) you meant something other than "Didn't have to take out billions in loans so we didn't fail"

Hobodeluxe:Nutsac_Jim:I went to UK for a wedding. I had a tooth infection while there. I commented that I thought itwas not bad, I just walked in and got service.10 out of 10 people I talked to there about it laughed and said "yeah, that's because you had cash in hand, we have to wait in pain"

what did they do? look at it and prescribe antibiotics? drill and filling? extraction? and what was the cost compared to here?

I am amazed that the NHS includes dental care at all. Even the Glorious Worker's Paradise of Canada covers not a single god damn iota of dental care, not even basic checkups. Lots of poor people have bad teeth as a result, which is shameful. Try getting a decent job to become not-poor when you've got visibly damaged, missing or rotten teeth.

SultanofSchwing:cyber_slacker: So I'm in the top 10%, without having to live in a shi*hole like Alberta :)

\Montreal\\I.T.

This shiathole called Alberta pays for your infrastructure to the tune of $7.8B this year.

Just remember that when you wanna get all edgy.

Every province contributes to the union. BC gives us weed, AB produces metric farktons of money and conservative politicians, the maritimes produce people with funny accents, etc. If we didn't have Quebec our smug asshole quota would be all shot to pieces and Ontario would have to refit production to dual specialize in smug and arrogant assholes.

No I was wrong. It looks like Canadians pay taxes on world wide income. I don't have time to look more into it, now -- but that's interesting.

We do. The major difference is that if you're not living in Canada (like me) you don't have to file or pay Canadian income tax (except on some income earned in Canada). It's YOUR location that's important.

Thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense. If you're not living in the country, you're not using the services. The US tax system treats us like serfs. No matter where go we have to pay the lord.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 526x222]

**Countries (2) in pink have citizenship-based taxation where that citizens pay regardless of residencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation

Actually the US never really enforced the rule until the recession started.

But hey, Revenue Canada also wanted me to pay my corporate tax on time, which they never used to care about.

Yea, I've heard foreign banks no longer open accounts for American passport holders as they are afraid of the US coming down on them.

/US needs the cash. To put our national debt of $16,000,000,000,0000 into perspective if you stack dollars on top of each other, the stack would go to the moon 5 times. considering: a dollar bill is.0043 inches in thickness and moon approx 200,000 miles away.

SultanofSchwing:cyber_slacker: So I'm in the top 10%, without having to live in a shi*hole like Alberta :)

\Montreal\\I.T.

This shiathole called Alberta pays for your infrastructure to the tune of $7.8B this year.

Just remember that when you wanna get all edgy.

The way your provincial government is going, you'll be bankrupt (financially and environmentally) the day the tar sands run out so...I guess the east will have to help you out?/Ontarian, so I guess I can't help much! Have not province and whatnot.

No I was wrong. It looks like Canadians pay taxes on world wide income. I don't have time to look more into it, now -- but that's interesting.

We do. The major difference is that if you're not living in Canada (like me) you don't have to file or pay Canadian income tax (except on some income earned in Canada). It's YOUR location that's important.

Thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense. If you're not living in the country, you're not using the services. The US tax system treats us like serfs. No matter where go we have to pay the lord.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 526x222]

**Countries (2) in pink have citizenship-based taxation where that citizens pay regardless of residencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation

Actually the US never really enforced the rule until the recession started.

But hey, Revenue Canada also wanted me to pay my corporate tax on time, which they never used to care about.

Yea, I've heard foreign banks no longer open accounts for American passport holders as they are afraid of the US coming down on them.

/US needs the cash. To put our national debt of $16,000,000,000,0000 into perspective if you stack dollars on top of each other, the stack would go to the moon 5 times. considering: a dollar bill is.0043 inches in thickness and moon approx 200,000 miles away.

If you could toss a briefcase full of money into the fireplace every 10 seconds and have it actually completely burn (unlikely) it would only take you 6 years to go through all that money. No sleeping !

SordidEuphemism:monoski: I am taking it that subby meant 10x the average Canadian CEO//the way it was written it could be read as citizen then it would not sound so impressive

I think it would be impressive if (more) CEOs made sure they were only paid 10x more than their lowest-paid employees. Everyone can grow together. But that would require a rethinking of profits, corporate structures, and the like, and without impetus to do so, few CEOs would volunteer for it.

The CEO of Walmart makes about $25 million a year. Walmart employs 2 million people. If the CEO divided his pay equally among all employees, each person would get a check for $12.

That's an extreme example, but even if you take the obscene $26 million Home Depot USED to pay its CEO (base) and divided it among its 355k employees, each employee would get a life-changing check of $73.24. The new CEO makes about $9 million, so that check would now be about $25.

No I was wrong. It looks like Canadians pay taxes on world wide income. I don't have time to look more into it, now -- but that's interesting.

We do. The major difference is that if you're not living in Canada (like me) you don't have to file or pay Canadian income tax (except on some income earned in Canada). It's YOUR location that's important.

Thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense. If you're not living in the country, you're not using the services. The US tax system treats us like serfs. No matter where go we have to pay the lord.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 526x222]

**Countries (2) in pink have citizenship-based taxation where that citizens pay regardless of residencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation

Actually the US never really enforced the rule until the recession started.

But hey, Revenue Canada also wanted me to pay my corporate tax on time, which they never used to care about.

Yea, I've heard foreign banks no longer open accounts for American passport holders as they are afraid of the US coming down on them.

/US needs the cash. To put our national debt of $16,000,000,000,0000 into perspective if you stack dollars on top of each other, the stack would go to the moon 5 times. considering: a dollar bill is.0043 inches in thickness and moon approx 200,000 miles away.

If you could toss a briefcase full of money into the fireplace every 10 seconds and have it actually completely burn (unlikely) it would only take you 6 years to go through all that money. No sleeping !

NO. It would take alot longer than that. At around 10,000 one dollar bills per briefcase that would be around 1.6 billion briefcases. At 10 mins per briefcase that would take around 30,000 years to burn that much.

Cynicism101:SultanofSchwing: cyber_slacker: So I'm in the top 10%, without having to live in a shi*hole like Alberta :)

\Montreal\\I.T.

This shiathole called Alberta pays for your infrastructure to the tune of $7.8B this year.

Just remember that when you wanna get all edgy.

The way your provincial government is going, you'll be bankrupt (financially and environmentally) the day the tar sands run out so...I guess the east will have to help you out?/Ontarian, so I guess I can't help much! Have not province and whatnot.

There's a lot of "Tar Sands" oil. Like, at least a century's worth. And that's not counting conventional oil. Oh yeah, and the massive NG reservoirs.

Cynicism101:SultanofSchwing: cyber_slacker: So I'm in the top 10%, without having to live in a shi*hole like Alberta :)

\Montreal\\I.T.

This shiathole called Alberta pays for your infrastructure to the tune of $7.8B this year.

Just remember that when you wanna get all edgy.

The way your provincial government is going, you'll be bankrupt (financially and environmentally) the day the tar sands run out so...I guess the east will have to help you out?/Ontarian, so I guess I can't help much! Have not province and whatnot.

Help out with what exactly? Ontario's only exports are bad hockey on TV and liberals.

puppetmaster745:SordidEuphemism: monoski: I am taking it that subby meant 10x the average Canadian CEO//the way it was written it could be read as citizen then it would not sound so impressive

I think it would be impressive if (more) CEOs made sure they were only paid 10x more than their lowest-paid employees. Everyone can grow together. But that would require a rethinking of profits, corporate structures, and the like, and without impetus to do so, few CEOs would volunteer for it.

The CEO of Walmart makes about $25 million a year. Walmart employs 2 million people. If the CEO divided his pay equally among all employees, each person would get a check for $12.

That's an extreme example, but even if you take the obscene $26 million Home Depot USED to pay its CEO (base) and divided it among its 355k employees, each employee would get a life-changing check of $73.24. The new CEO makes about $9 million, so that check would now be about $25.

That's great, but that's not what I'm calling for.

If your lowest employee makes 10.00 an hour, the CEO would then make 100.00 an hour, given a 40-hour work week. That's all I'm saying. I'm also not implying it should be mandated, or enforced, or even suggested by the government. But it sure would be a wonderful way of running a business.

puppetmaster745:SordidEuphemism: monoski: I am taking it that subby meant 10x the average Canadian CEO//the way it was written it could be read as citizen then it would not sound so impressive

I think it would be impressive if (more) CEOs made sure they were only paid 10x more than their lowest-paid employees. Everyone can grow together. But that would require a rethinking of profits, corporate structures, and the like, and without impetus to do so, few CEOs would volunteer for it.

The CEO of Walmart makes about $25 million a year. Walmart employs 2 million people. If the CEO divided his pay equally among all employees, each person would get a check for $12.

That's an extreme example, but even if you take the obscene $26 million Home Depot USED to pay its CEO (base) and divided it among its 355k employees, each employee would get a life-changing check of $73.24. The new CEO makes about $9 million, so that check would now be about $25.

Walmart Net Income for 2012 was reported at ~$13.75Bln. Split evenly between 2 million employees that's a check of $6875 each and if you think that wouldn't be life changing for people living in poverty I don't think you've got a brain in you.

Obviously reinvesting the entirety of a companies profits in a bonus plan for employees is an impossible concept but even 10% of that means the difference between orange juice and tang for a struggling family.

For those of you with access to the NYT, an article from August, 2013.

Median household income in the US has recovered to $52,100 but is still over $3,000 below the pre-recession level. That's HOUSEHOLD income. In Canada, according to this article, it is $76,000. Even allowing for the recent slump in the Canadian dollar to 96 cents, that's a fairly sizeable difference. Mind you, times are tough all over and Canada's income looks set to slide into a long slump unless somebody discovers a way to turn autumn leaves into gold.

Household income in the South (surprise! surprise! to quote Gomer Pile) was $47,000, which means roughly two thirds of Canadian median household.

The nice thing about being Canadian is you're not downwind from a heap of Rush LImbaugh's bullshiat unless you own a $50 million waterfront lot on the beach near Miami.

How the Mighty Art Fallen.

Old households are doing best, while families in the Mid-West have been buoyed somewhat by fracking and other energy growth.

Says the NYT:Those changes were smaller than the 10.9 percent decline, to $33,500, for non-Hispanic black households, whose economic problems are likely to be a focus when Mr. Obama speaks next week on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.

The rich are indeed getting richer, and the poor poorer. The melanin-rich are especially cash- and asset- poor.

But always remember that Big Brother Obama is a redistribution-mad Commie robbing the poor hard-working white married Christian rich to subsidize the lazy (read: black) poor. This belief is entirely unrelated to any known fact in the known Universe, but may be true in alternative realities some where.

They should give Obama a World's Worst Socialist Award. Heck, there's an Ignobel Prize for every Nobel Prize. There should be a prize for Super-villains who fail to the point of enriching their victims.

SultanofSchwing:Cynicism101: SultanofSchwing: cyber_slacker: So I'm in the top 10%, without having to live in a shi*hole like Alberta :)

\Montreal\\I.T.

This shiathole called Alberta pays for your infrastructure to the tune of $7.8B this year.

Just remember that when you wanna get all edgy.

The way your provincial government is going, you'll be bankrupt (financially and environmentally) the day the tar sands run out so...I guess the east will have to help you out?/Ontarian, so I guess I can't help much! Have not province and whatnot.

Help out with what exactly? Ontario's only exports are bad hockey on TV and liberals.

18After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. 2With a mighty voice he shouted:"'Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!She has become a dwelling for demonsand a haunt for every impure spirit,a haunt for every unclean bird,a haunt for every unclean and detestable animal.3For all the nations have drunkthe maddening wine of her adulteries.The kings of the earth committed adultery with her,and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."

Nutsac_Jim:Heims: I came to express my outrage, until I RTFA and found I was in the Top 10%.

Ahhh, oilfield. Most of us are Top 10%.

My friend is a lib.

He was biatching about the 1%.I commented that he is a 5% er, even though he has no spare money.

I let him know that he needs to be careful about jacking up taxes on those that "make more than him" because "those guys can afford it",because to 90% of the masses... HE is the fat cat that needs his taxes doubled or tripled.

hungryhungryhorus:puppetmaster745: SordidEuphemism: monoski: I am taking it that subby meant 10x the average Canadian CEO//the way it was written it could be read as citizen then it would not sound so impressive

I think it would be impressive if (more) CEOs made sure they were only paid 10x more than their lowest-paid employees. Everyone can grow together. But that would require a rethinking of profits, corporate structures, and the like, and without impetus to do so, few CEOs would volunteer for it.

The CEO of Walmart makes about $25 million a year. Walmart employs 2 million people. If the CEO divided his pay equally among all employees, each person would get a check for $12.

That's an extreme example, but even if you take the obscene $26 million Home Depot USED to pay its CEO (base) and divided it among its 355k employees, each employee would get a life-changing check of $73.24. The new CEO makes about $9 million, so that check would now be about $25.

Walmart Net Income for 2012 was reported at ~$13.75Bln. Split evenly between 2 million employees that's a check of $6875 each and if you think that wouldn't be life changing for people living in poverty I don't think you've got a brain in you.

Obviously reinvesting the entirety of a companies profits in a bonus plan for employees is an impossible concept but even 10% of that means the difference between orange juice and tang for a struggling family.

Well yeah... But that really has nothing to do with executive compensation. I mean you could pay the WM CEO $1billion and there'd still be $12.75billion for the plebs.

For those of you with access to the NYT, an article from August, 2013.

...

Man I really do hate your constant pseudo-analysis that you piling into topics.

We Canadians are taxed up the wazoo (fer cryin' out loud, there's a 10-12% tariff on imported clothing. Because maybe someday somebody will successfully grow cotton in Canada). Virtually everything is more expensive - especially food. Dairy and eggs are run by cartels. We have to deal with winter which means a lot more maintenance and lowered productivity.

Living in the south in the US is cheap. Hell I could live in LA and I will have lower expenses than in Calgary.

SordidEuphemism:puppetmaster745: SordidEuphemism: monoski: I am taking it that subby meant 10x the average Canadian CEO//the way it was written it could be read as citizen then it would not sound so impressive

I think it would be impressive if (more) CEOs made sure they were only paid 10x more than their lowest-paid employees. Everyone can grow together. But that would require a rethinking of profits, corporate structures, and the like, and without impetus to do so, few CEOs would volunteer for it.

The CEO of Walmart makes about $25 million a year. Walmart employs 2 million people. If the CEO divided his pay equally among all employees, each person would get a check for $12.

That's an extreme example, but even if you take the obscene $26 million Home Depot USED to pay its CEO (base) and divided it among its 355k employees, each employee would get a life-changing check of $73.24. The new CEO makes about $9 million, so that check would now be about $25.

That's great, but that's not what I'm calling for.

If your lowest employee makes 10.00 an hour, the CEO would then make 100.00 an hour, given a 40-hour work week. That's all I'm saying. I'm also not implying it should be mandated, or enforced, or even suggested by the government. But it sure would be a wonderful way of running a business.

I understand, my point is that the CEO's salary has virtually zero impact on the employees, besides the reduction in morale for employees that don't understand that. If the argument is that the CEO will pay the lowest-earning employees $40 an hour so he can make lawyer money, I don't think that's going to fly.

SordidEuphemism:puppetmaster745: SordidEuphemism: monoski: I am taking it that subby meant 10x the average Canadian CEO//the way it was written it could be read as citizen then it would not sound so impressive

I think it would be impressive if (more) CEOs made sure they were only paid 10x more than their lowest-paid employees. Everyone can grow together. But that would require a rethinking of profits, corporate structures, and the like, and without impetus to do so, few CEOs would volunteer for it.

The CEO of Walmart makes about $25 million a year. Walmart employs 2 million people. If the CEO divided his pay equally among all employees, each person would get a check for $12.

That's an extreme example, but even if you take the obscene $26 million Home Depot USED to pay its CEO (base) and divided it among its 355k employees, each employee would get a life-changing check of $73.24. The new CEO makes about $9 million, so that check would now be about $25.

That's great, but that's not what I'm calling for.

If your lowest employee makes 10.00 an hour, the CEO would then make 100.00 an hour, given a 40-hour work week. That's all I'm saying. I'm also not implying it should be mandated, or enforced, or even suggested by the government. But it sure would be a wonderful way of running a business.

Out of curiosity, do you think that running a $10 million business with 50 employees is the same job as running a $10 billion business with 50,000 employees? Because under your theory, they would both be paid the same salary.

Cataholic:SordidEuphemism: puppetmaster745: SordidEuphemism: monoski: I am taking it that subby meant 10x the average Canadian CEO//the way it was written it could be read as citizen then it would not sound so impressive

I think it would be impressive if (more) CEOs made sure they were only paid 10x more than their lowest-paid employees. Everyone can grow together. But that would require a rethinking of profits, corporate structures, and the like, and without impetus to do so, few CEOs would volunteer for it.

The CEO of Walmart makes about $25 million a year. Walmart employs 2 million people. If the CEO divided his pay equally among all employees, each person would get a check for $12.

That's an extreme example, but even if you take the obscene $26 million Home Depot USED to pay its CEO (base) and divided it among its 355k employees, each employee would get a life-changing check of $73.24. The new CEO makes about $9 million, so that check would now be about $25.

That's great, but that's not what I'm calling for.

If your lowest employee makes 10.00 an hour, the CEO would then make 100.00 an hour, given a 40-hour work week. That's all I'm saying. I'm also not implying it should be mandated, or enforced, or even suggested by the government. But it sure would be a wonderful way of running a business.

Out of curiosity, do you think that running a $10 million business with 50 employees is the same job as running a $10 billion business with 50,000 employees? Because under your theory, they would both be paid the same salary.

Out of curiosity, do you think my suggestion as a 'better way' to arrange salaries is meant to be universally applied to all circumstances and situations? Because based on living expenses and other forces on one's worth, I'd suspect my numbers are rather malleable.

To answer your question, though, no. I don't imagine they're the same job. I also don't imagine that the same support networks exist for a 10 million or 100 million or 1 billion dollar company. Different environments, different structures.

I made a simple statement: "I think it would be impressive if (more) CEOs made sure they were only paid 10x more than their lowest-paid employees." That's all, really. I thought it was a neat idea, and one worth sharing.

18After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. 2With a mighty voice he shouted:"'Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!She has become a dwelling for demonsand a haunt for every impure spirit,a haunt for every unclean bird,a haunt for every unclean and detestable animal.3For all the nations have drunkthe maddening wine of her adulteries.The kings of the earth committed adultery with her,and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."